I’m not going to defend Rand Paul, I’m just not gonna. If you think I’m going to do something about his civil rights and that whole thing, I’m just not gonna do that. You’re not gonna get me with some racist tag.

Speaking out for freedom will definitely get you tagged with the worst labels available. You will get tagged as being in favor of abhorrent behaviors and the part about the right to be abhorrent ending where another’s rights begin will be ignored.

In online gaming, it’s a badge of honor to be called a cheater or child molester or be accused of incestuous behavior. If you’ve been tagged with any of these labels, you know you played well; the best players are called the worst things.

Badges of honor for the liberty minded include being described as immoral, racist, selfish, drug abuser, hatirot, teabagger, godless, and Nazi. If you’ve been labeled with any of these for speaking out for freedom, you are probably one of my heroes and a benefit to all who come into contact with you.

If you are going to be damned, considered it a badge of honor to be damned for being pro freedom.

Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964) SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

This issue is a real test to find out just how much someone believes in the principle of liberty. The reason this is a sensitive issue is because fortunately, the majority of those in the US find the idea of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin disgusting.

Legally permitting this type of discrimination as they do in Japan seems inherently un-American. When I mention to others that Japan has these signs the typical response is “What the Hell? That’s just wrong!” The existence of the signs gives the impression that the country of Japan as a whole is a racist nation, and Americans would not want this country to be perceived in the same light.

It’s still an important question to ask if the Civil Rights Act went too far by not allowing a privately owned business to ever discriminate based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. The flip-side of the argument is America the type of country that forces people to provide service for others they find morally repugnant? Is America they type of country that forces people to associate with other they believe are inherently evil?

Rachel Maddow’s asked Rand Paul the question “Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?” Here is a likely hypothetical situation which reverses the roles of who the public sees as having the moral high ground in these debates.

Suppose Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church decide they aren’t getting enough publicity picketing funerals. They decide to branch out and adorn themselves with “God Hates Fags” or biblical quotes against homosexuality t-shirts and head down to the local gay bar.

The Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the Civil Rights Act from being denied service based their religious beliefs. The owner of the bar would be required to serve them, all while the Westboro groups blames the owner and patrons of the bar of all the problems of our nation.

If the owner chose not to serve Fred Phelps, they would be subjected to a lawsuit and would probably lose. The law clearly upholds the right of all persons without exception to service and has no place for any consideration of the owner of the establishment rights not to be subjected to the humiliation of being forced to serve someone they consider to be Satan incarnate.

With the roles reversed, it’s clear the owner of a public establishment civil rights are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Back to Rachel Maddow’s question: Do you think a gay bar owner has the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?” They currently don’t have the right, but they should.

Errol Louis +2:30: He (Rand Paul) made a statement the other day about wanting to repeal the American’s with Disabilities Act. Which is literally carved in stoned in every jurisdiction in the country. He’s got to answer some questions, I mean, I got calls from all over the country, senior citizens, disabled people, saying, ‘What is this guy talking about?’ and if you get too many rookie mistakes like that, and he’s a first time candidate, you can really start to upset the apple cart.

This part of the political discussion of the primary results stood out in my mind because it said a lot about the state of politics and conventional political wisdom. Questioning scared cows that are ‘carved in stone’ is considered by many to be a rookie political mistake.

Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul, is also known for pointing out problems with sacred cows in politics–most notably, Ron Paul has been championing the problems with the ‘carved in stone’ Federal Reserve for decades. Rand Paul questioning a sacred cow was no mistake and should not be perceived as one.

Politicians only saying what people want to hear, things won’t rock the boat, can be blamed for a large number of the problems in Washington DC. There is no hope for change as long as people see things done by the government as being carved in stone, not to be changed or even questioned.

I’ll take rookie ‘mistakes’ over professional political mistakes like lying about your past, sex scandals, or adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. If that was a rookie mistake, it makes a good argument to bring in more rookies.